THE BALKAN POLITICS OF “COMMITTEE OF UNION AND PRO- IN...

İslami İlimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2019/2, 37-56

THE BALKAN POLITICS OF “COMMITTEE OF UNION AND PRO-

GRESS” IN 1908-1913

Mesut AVCI∗

Abstract

The first places where the Ottoman Empire began to lose territories were the Balkans. In addition, the loss

of the Balkans, the gateway to the West, meant the disposal of a region of special significance. The loss of

Rumelia had caused a great negative impact on every part of the Ottoman Empire. This negative effect was

exacerbated by the fact that the Muslim population, who had been living there for 500 years, were forced

to immigrate to Anatolia in masses. The loss of the Balkans should not only be considered as a loss of land

but as the unravelling of the Ottoman Empire, and the loss of glory for the empire that lost its lands against

the West. Further, it was the dissolution of the Ottoman ideology for the Committee of Union and Progress.

As a result of the disloyalty faced by the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, the Turkish nationalists gained a

reactive strength in a swift manner and became widespread. Because of the influence and patronage of the

West in the nationalization of the non-Muslim people in the Balkans, Committee of Union and Progress

also played an active role in the removal of the un-Islamic elements in Anatolia.

Keywords: Balkans, Committee of Union and Progress, the Ottoman Empire

1908-1913 İTTİHAT VE TERAKKİ CEMİYETİNİN BALKAN

POLİTİKASI

Öz

Osmanlı’nın toprak kaybetmeye başladığı ilk yerler Balkanlardır. Ayrıca İmparatorluğun Batı’ya açılan

kapısıdır. Kaybedilmesi de özellikle çok özel anlam taşıyan bir coğrafyadır. Rumelinin kaybı Osmanlı içer-

isinde her kesimde büyük olumsuz etki meydana getirmiştir. Bu olumsuz etkiyi daha da ağırlaştıran yak-

laşık 500 yıldır buralarda yerleşik bulunan Müslüman halkın kitleler halinde Anadolu’ya göç etmek zo-

runda kalmış olmalarıdır. Balkanların kaybı sadece toprak kaybı olarak düşünülmemeli, Osmanlı’nın

çözülmesi, Batı’ya karşı topraklarını kaybeden imparatorluğun ihtişamını kaybetmeye başlaması ayrıca

İttihat ve Terakki için de Osmancılık görüşünün de sonu olmuştur. Balkanlardaki Osmancılığın gördüğü

bu vefasızlığa karşılık Türk milliyetçiliği bir tepki hareketi olarak güç kazanmış ve yaygınlaşmıştır. Bal-

kanlardaki Müslüman olmayan halkların devletleşmesinde Batı’ın etkisi ve himayesinde olmasından

dolayı, İttihat ve Terakki de Anadolu’daki Müslüman olmayan unsurları tasfiye etmesinde etkin rol

olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Balkanlar, İttihat ve Teraki, Osmanlı Terak

∗ Dr. Öğretim Üyesi, Adıyaman Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi, [email protected] ORCİD ID: 0000-0003-1310-3108

The Balkan Polıtıcs Of “Commıttee Of Unıon And Pro-Gress” In 1908-1913

38

1 – Introduction

The geographical name Rumelia, given by the Ottomans for the Balkan Peninsula,

was also the name for the Ottoman state that surrounded this region. The widest bounda-

ries of Rumelia were the Black Sea in the east, the Adriatic Sea in the west, the Vienna

gates in the north and the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas in the south. Since the regions

such as Wallachia, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Alba-

nia and Mora were included within these boundaries they were referred to with their own

names thus the Rumelia expression was given to the places remaining out of these regions

upon the progress of the Ottomans. The places, which were called Rumelia, cover the

Eastern Thrace, Macedonia, Thessalia, Mora Peninsula, Skopje, Janina, Thessaloniki,

Monastery and Edirne provinces.

The Ottoman Empire gained a Balkan country appearance following the Rumelia

conquest within the 15th century. The Ottoman Empire obtained its economic power and

human capital considerably from the Balkans until the Balkan Wars. The Balkans were

the backbone of the Ottoman Empire. The indulgence specific to empires introduced

peace for many years in the Balkans and such a colorful geography inculcated various

ethnical factors into living together under the roof of the empire.

The Balkans became the center of the rebellions due to the development of the

sense of being a nation starting from the 19th century. The process, which started with

the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-1878, known as the '93 War, and ended with the Balkan

Wars, caused the Western flank of the Ottoman Empire to collapse entirely. Hereinafter,

the Ottoman Empire ceased to be a Balkan country and accordingly a European country

and was cloaked in the guise of a Middle East country. The region that increased the

general literacy level of the Ottoman Empire had always started to develop and gain

strength in the Balkans. The foundations of the Young Turk revolution would be laid in

the Balkans.

The Young Turk Revolution in 1908 ended the long period of the autocracy of

Abdulhamit II. and accompanied the political, cultural and social regulations. The Com-

mittee of Union and Progress had been controlling the destiny of the country until the

year of 1918 and had been directing its external policy following its power grab after the

revolution of 1908. While causing the continuity of the soil losses in particular, the un-

ionists could not solve the problems of the state by re-enacting the constitional monarchy.

The revolution did not prevent the rapid diminishing of the boundaries of the state. Bul-

garia declared its independence and Austria annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina within one year

following the declaration of the Second Constitutional Era. The Balkan States (Serbia,

Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria), which formed an alliance as a result of the wrong

policies followed by the unionists in the Balkans and the provocations of Russia, declared

war against the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First and Second Balkan Wars, the

Ottoman Empire left its entire sovereignty area in Europe to the Balkan States, excluding

the Rumelia hinterland of Istanbul. The Balkan Wars were the beginning of the end of

the Ottoman Empire.

Mesut Avcı

2 – Historical Infrastructure for the Ottoman in the Balkans

The arrival of the Ottoman Empire to the Balkan Peninsula in 1354 marked an

essential turning point in the history of the region because the "Pax-Ottomana" (Ottoman

Peace) era started in the region after that date. In this era, which characterizes the power-

ful periods of the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans achieved peace and welfare to an extent

that could not be compared to the previous eras in economic, political and administrative

terms. For instance, the Balkan villagers were at a considerably advanced level in terms

of economic welfare when compared to their European fellows until the 17th century.

However, this period of peace started to be disturbed due to the languorousness of the

Ottoman Empire, the distortion of the economic, administrative and soil system and the

long-lasting wars as of the 18th century. In addition to this, the reasons such as the ex-

pansion of the French Nationalism movements in the region, the interest accounting of

states such as Austria, France, England, and mainly Russia in the region, and conse-

quently the provocation of the local people by them, demolished the peace and welfare

environment established in the region so not to be ameliorated.

The heaviest impact to the presence of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans after

the Serbian and Greek riots was caused after the Ottoman-Russia War of 1878. With the

Berlin Treaty which was signed at the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire lost all of its

soils except for Thrace and Macedonia. Although Bosnia-Herzegovina and Bulgaria con-

tinued to be legally deemed as Ottoman soil until the year of 1908, Bosnia-Herzegovina

was lost in 1908 and then Bulgaria was completely lost one year after. After the Balkan

Wars, which occurred within the years of 1912-1913, the boundaries of the Ottoman Em-

pire and in the following the boundaries of the Republic of Turkey in the Balkans were

determined in its final state. Thus, a narrow region which encloses Edirne and Kirklareli,

called the Eastern Thrace, remained within the Turkish boundaries. However, the conse-

quences of the Balkan Wars were not only calamitous for the Turks but also caused dis-

agreements and hostilities between the Balkan states and people, the effects of which have

continued so far today.

That the Balkan states desired to fill the gap remaining from the Ottoman Empire

for merely political and strategic purposes without considering the ethnical, religious,

cultural and historical conditions in the region caused the mentioned calamitous conse-

quences. The ethnical, religious and cultural conflicts existing in the region became

chronic and constituted the largest obstacle in front of the Balkans' gaining stability. The

center of the political dispute between the Balkan states was composed issue of sharing

Macedonia. Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania desired to expand even at the expense

of each other. For instance, whereas the Bulgarians desired to have all of Macedonia,

which was shared between three states, Serbia desired to have Thessalonica which was

owned by Greece. With the Bucharest Treaty which was signed after the Second Balkans,

requiring new drawing, the map of the Balkans was drawn up again and left many social

problems such as minority and migration issues as well as many political and boundary

issues unsettled.


40

Under these circumstances, the First World War broke out in this region with the

induction of the existing political and social instability environment in the Balkans. Upon

the end of the war, the boundaries in the Balkans changed again. Thus, the existing polit-

ical, geographical and ethnical disunity in the Balkans became much more entrenched.

Whereas Romania took Dobruca from Bulgaria and Transylvania from Hungary, defeated

Bulgaria had to leave Gumulcine and Dedeagac to Greece and some of its soils in Mace-

donia to Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavia state was founded on the independent soils of Serbia

and Montenegro with a part of the soils of Austria-Hungary Empire which fell apart after

the First World War. Thus, whereas Bulgaria was reduced to a small state by disconnect-

ing it from the Aegean Sea, Romania considerably expanded its soils. This, however,

consequently caused new problems in addition to the existing ethical, minority and

boundary problems in the Balkans.

Within the years following the First World War, the Balkan states were dealing

with boundary issues and external issues such as the pressures of the European States on

one hand and were struggling with the internal issues such as economic problems and

power struggles on the other hand. Turkey, however, completed its national struggle with

the Lausanne Peace Treaty within this period. Turkey sat down to the peace table together

with its Balkan neighbours in Lausanne. Thus, Turkey ended the war case with the Balkan

countries at the opposite block with the Ottoman Empire excluding Bulgaria. However,

with the signature of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, Turkey could not completely settle its

problems with its Balkan neighbours. The settlement of these problems, which were based

on a long historical past, was difficult and inconvenient and would require a long process.1

2.1 – 1908-1918 A Brief Overview of Ottoman Balkan Policy

The most important feature seen in the activities of this period is that the cadres

who govern the state were not aware of the most important balance calculations in the

state and between its closest neighbours. During the Turco-Italian War, those who left the

region unprepared with senseless approaches, ignored the reports from the consulates in

the Balkans regarding the preparations to act together. The government helped to resolve

the conflict personally by solving the churches dispute, the biggest obstacle to the Balkan

nations' alliance. Russia was trying to establish their Pan-Slavism plan that came forth

from the period of Abdulhamit II. Due to the Slavic elements in the Balkans, they were

assured that even if they would lose the war they would not have to give up on anything

and the status quo would be preserved.2 Now, if we look at the agreements made between

the Balkan states in this period, we can understand the views of the Balkan states in this

period better.

3 – How was the first Committee of Union and Progress established?

1 Mustafa Sitki Bilgin, “Atatürk Döneminde Turkiye'nin Balkan Diplomasisi (1923-1930)”, Journal of Ataturk Research Center XX/60

(2004)

2 Committee Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi: Tarih, Medeniyet, Kültür, ed: Ahmet Turan Alkan (İstanbul: Ağaç Yayınları, 1993), 114-115.

Mesut Avcı

The foundation of this secret society was founded on June 4, 1889 (21 May 1305)

at the Military Medical School in Gulhane Park in Istanbul, one hour after the meeting.

The founders of the committee were these five medical students: Hikmet Emin from

Konya, Arapkirli Abdullah Cevdet, Ishaq Sukuti from Diyarbekir, Ohrili Ibrahim Ethem

(Temo) and Mehmet Reshid the Caucasian. These friends have been involved in investi-

gating the deeds of the inadequate administration for over a year. The purpose of the

committee was: Firstly, to explain to the public that the government’s policy was perish-

ing the state. The Sultan was the main responsible and the people around him were aiding

and abetting him. Secondly, to sacrifice everything to save the homeland and the nation

from dangers.

For this reason, they had sworn to each other and decided to register the members

secretly on condition that they would swear. The number of members of the community,

who had a bash at civilian and military schools, continents, military circles and self-em-

ployed occupation, had exceeded one hundred in two years. Upon this, the administrative

was formed and the committee was technical and divided into branches. The number of

the members assigned to the branches is given in that branch. For example, 121/11 meant

number 11 of the 121st branch. The member recognized the person he will receive and

his guide, who took him to the community, and the help is regularly collected from this

channel.

In 1893 (1309) the number of members of the community reached 900. The com-

mittee had spread everywhere in Istanbul and even religious functionaries had been re-

cruited as members. Branches have been established in private schools and even in

khanqahs. In medical school, obvious conversations and speeches were possible. How-

ever, some mistrustful people in the medical school were able to enter this committee,

which was busy with the duty of guidance of the people. They (the mistrusts) reported

the existence of the committee, disseminated many secret writings, and that the commit-

tee would soon plot mischief. The ninth grade was being raided down. Many books and

documents had been seized. As defendant, nine students were arrested and sent to the war

court. They were suspended and sentenced to imprisonment. Among them were Abdullah

Cevdet and Mehmet Reshid, founders of the committee. Abdulhamit II. did not believe

that these actions of school children would be serious. And after a few months of impris-

onment, he pardoned these students but appointed Zeki Pasha instead of Said Pasha, the

free-minded minister of medicine. At that moment the pressure and the spying were in-

creasing gradually for a year.

As a matter of natural law, while the pressure was increasing, it turned into

strength. In 1894 (1310) the committee started to operate. They decided to make publica-

tions in Europe and recruited those who had fled before. Three medical students escaped

to Europe. Among them was Nazim, who had been engaged to take Ahmet Riza Bey into

the committee. Ahmet Rıza Bey accepted this proposal, however, he offered to call the


42

committee “the Ottoman Union and Progress Committee.” The center in Istanbul also

accepted this proposal. Thus, the Ottoman Union Committee had its new name. 3

3.1 – Balkan Organization of Committee of Union and Progress

Another important development in the period we examined was the Balkan organ-

ization and its activities, which were established with the efforts of Ibrahim Temo. When

Ibrahim Temo learned about his sentence, he escaped to Romania with the help of Roma-

nian friends and arrived there on the first November 1895. Thereby, a person who played

one of the important roles in the foundation of the society had reached the Balkans. As a

result of Temo's activities, branches had been established in Romania as well as other

branches in other Balkan cities. The branch in Romania had had little importance at that

time compared to others.

The branch in Romania took shape in 1896 when attended by Crimzade Ali Rıza

Bey, who escaped to Romania after Temo in 1896 together with Istanbul Dar-ul-Muallim

graduate Huseyin Avni Efendi, Osman-Fakih’s Sheikh Shevki Efendi and Mahmut Celebi

of Köstenceli, who had been in Paris for some time.

With the help of Shefik Bey and Alfred Rustem Bey, who were Ottoman officers

first, but close to the ideas of Young Turks, they had published a booklet named Hareket

(movement). The booklet’s content dealt with the losses under the rule of Abdulhamit II

from the “War of 93” onwards. This booklet was welcomed with great interest both in

the Balkans and by other Young Turk opponents.

As a result of Temo's contact, it was decided to establish a central branch in Bul-

garia in the days near the escape of Murad Bey from Istanbul. In the official letter ad-

dressed to Murad Bey by the Bulgarian branch we see that the following expression is

used; “(…) you established our branch before your escape from Istanbul. In other words,

when you dragged your elbow at the Russian school's benches and were thinking about

the freedom of Islam and the felicity of the Ottoman as we might have been thinking

earlier about freedom and felicity of our nation…”

In addition to Ruse, which was the center, branches and supporters were organized

in Varna, Shumen, Sliven, Yambol, Plovdiv and Vidin. The widespread establishment in

Bulgaria and the increase in activity made the Ottoman administration very anxious.

These groups were directly in touch with Temo. People working in this organization knew

that there was a European center; however, they accepted the first founder of the commit-

tee as the local leader.

The leaders of this organization went on regional trips to provide publicity and

newspaper subscribers. On the rise of anti-government publications in the region, the ad-

ministration had made an effort to prevent them. The measures were so concentrated that

officials decided to ban all newspapers originating from Bulgaria. But the government

3 Kazım Karabekir, İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti 1896-1909, (İstanbul: Emre Yayınları, 1993), 465-467.

Mesut Avcı

had had to warn that only certain articles were banned, or that all publications were not

prohibited.

The organization was not only in contact with the Balkan committees, but also

participated in meetings held by them, and provided them with speeches in favour of

Young Turks, which led to the great haste of the Ottoman administration. This develop-

ment of the Balkan organization continued even after 1897. However, the correspondence

of the organization with the European center had been stronger since this date.

4 – Important Events of the Period

4.1 – Announcement of Second Constitutional Monarchy

On July 23, 1908, the Second Constitutional Monarchy was declared. Those who

believed that the constitutional monarchy would take care of everything had imposed the

Constitution of 1876.

A non-scheduled and non-programmable motion was made. The state was in its

order and structure. Ottoman history was seen as the current.

Mr. Ali Fethi: "Yeah; He put so much work into this and even blood had been

shed, in comparison to other countries, but first of all, we have declared the constitution-

alism which was adopted as a remedy for salvation from thousand problems of the home-

land." And he adds, "While he was wondering what Istanbul would say, the Inspector

General Huseyin Hilmi Pasha specifically called for the magnanimous Refik, whom he

knew was the Head of the Union and Progress Committee of Thessaloniki.

Sultan Hamidin announced the same decision as us, when we pasted the first dec-

larations on the streets and declared the center as the constitution of the region through

telegraphy. At that moment Enver, Mustafa Kemal, Cemal, Kazim Karabekir and other

friends, with whom we were together and who would in the future have a say in the des-

tiny of the motherland, took a deep breath.“ But, somehow, we do not see Mustafa Kemal

in a meeting held a day later.

It is obvious that they were running away from Mustafa Kemal out of jealousy

because of his real love. Ali Okyar said for their own meeting: "The next day, with the

participation of Mithat Shukru, Talât, Cavit, Rahmi and Tahsin we discussed the path of

Union and Progress.

We decided to send Talât Bey, Cavit Bey, Rahmi Bey, Cemal Bey, Hafız Hakkı

Bey to Istanbul. Talât made this offer:

"The society should take responsibility. We must now officially take the stage as

a political presence representing the credibility of the people. Firstly, let us say that the

center of the community is Thessaloniki and all the communications will be done with


44

this center and the directives will be given only from the center. Let us inform the gov-

ernment that we are the addressees."

At this time, Thessaloniki cheers with the humbles of liberty. There's a festive

mood. The constitutional monarchy is thought to be celebrated. But there was a hesitation

for later on. Indeed, the leaders of the Union and Progress were hesitating. On the one

hand, the outburst of young officers who had contributed to the proclamation of the con-

stitutional monarchy, on the other hand, the astonishment brought on by the easy profits,

wiped away the discipline in the army.

"Neither the Committee of Union and Progress nor the officers were unable to

pass on to the League. The headquarters lost the initiative. Talat Pasha one day told us:

"Honestly, I am surprised too. We are waiting for the dust to settle.."

Professor Sadi Irmak said: "Union and Progress did not take power first but chose

to stay in an irresponsible situation through the central office and to act behind the scenes.

This point was against Mustafa Kemal's directions. He had recommended two things to

the Unionists: 1. The army must withdraw from politics. 2. The party should take the

responsibility of the government."

In fact, it is obvious that the Union and Progress, after the revolution, had no prep-

aration, and no program. They only gathered around the idea of the "Ottomanism idea“

but were considering the proclamation of the constitutional monarchy. Thus, Cemal Pasha

said: "The internal political program of the Committee of Union and Progress, which was

formed in Thessaloniki, was the return of Mithat Pasha's legal basis. The basis of this law

is the application of the principles of the Ottoman Administration community and exten-

sion graduation in Ottoman property.“ In his memoirs, he said: „I would like to inform

the ones that accused us of doing Turkish politics, in a tone of finality, that we did not do

Turkish politics but the politics of the Ottoman society.“

Feroz Ahmad, an Indian writer, said his valuable research: "Although it appears

as the strongest group of the society, it does not automatically guarantee the monopoly of

political power." He adds, "The League, which was not a monolithic political organiza-

tion, could not win its seemingly unified totality due to its own functionalities and con-

flicts, and thus could not claim power."

"The situation showed that the community could pass immediately to power. The

sovereign's traditional authority collapsed, while the Union and Progress had a mystique,

a characteristic of secret societies, its reputation had been increasing by the success of the

revolution.“ The writer continues: "The Unionists lacked the necessary experience and

social background to reach the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. There were other rea-

sons that prevented it from going to power. One of them is that the center does not have

a nationwide organization. They are not ready to take over the local government.

Mesut Avcı

"The power goes into Babiali's hands. The community continued to play the role

of guardian of the Constitutional Monarchy without taking an active role in the manage-

ment of the empire."

Kazım Karabekir complains for a long time about the organization. He states that

development is slow and expresses the damages the delays cause. After explaining to

Talât Pasha that centrals were formed in the Third Army region of the monastery, Pasha

said: “They cannot organize themselves in important places such as Istanbul, Edirne, Iz-

mir and Anatolia.

"It gave us great strength to take on a very dangerous job like Istanbul and, if

possible, Edirne. Then he complains that he went to Istanbul and that he could not form

an organisation. Pointing out that the community to be established in Istanbul can be

heard quickly, Sarayca says: If you get caught, the Saray will pick at your flesh with

tweezers."

When Kazım Karabekir says: "So I'll return to the monastery," Talat Pasha says:

"How could that be? You are going with Irade-i Seniye to Istanbul, to the Harbiye School

to teach. You come to Thessaloniki. Then you say you give up and return back to the

monastery. They will immediately take you to Istanbul under guard for detention. “

“There is no such thing. When we get back to the monastery, we take action.

Monastery, Resen, Ohrid from the center "We want freedom," he told the Sultan Tukhad

to telegraph the tyrant and we begin to destroy the supporters. If Istanbul persists, we set

out as the Army of Liberty under the command of Cihan Seraskeri." Talât Pasha: "We are

not ready for such jobs even in Thessaloniki."

The fact is that the Party of Union and Progress was not ready to govern, neither

as an organization, nor as an opinion, nor as staff. As a matter of fact, in Talat Pasha's

Gurbet Memories, "new people can represent new times. No cycle can rise on the shoul-

ders of the people that's already been tested." And in many places: "Misery and heedless-

ness is ours. Can we come to power without intellectuals, principles program, content

staff and institutions?"

Hüseyin Cahit Yalçın said: "In 1908 there was one organization that loved its

homeland and was ready to sacrifice their own lives in order to save it. But there was no

organization carrying the knowledge and experiment to manage a country."

The Grand Vizier Sait Halim Pasha also mentions the Committee of Union and

Progress in his book "Our Depression." In particular, referring to the painful, bitter ones

about who were the real responsibles: July Revolution 93 was made in the name of the

Constitution. What the revolutionaries demanded and received from the Sultan was noth-

ing but a complete and immediate application of this law. The Law Esasi was revived in

this way as a strange repetition of the cases. As he took his revenge on his strong hench-

men, he has made himself known to those who want to establish a moment of salvation

and progress for his country.


46

"As the irony of fate, the deputies of the nation adopted what was thought and put

forward by the supporters of the will. However, our new mujaddids could not find the

legal basis sufficiently liberal.

They tried to change it with the joy of achieving a success they didn’t expected

and having more power than they wanted. For a job like this, their information was very

poor. They wanted to overcome this deficiency by relying on a more or less team of lib-

erty ministers, which they gathered from the books they had seen or read during the jour-

ney to their country of origin. Thus, with their inexperienced and proud hands, they at-

tempted to change the Law Act 93."

Sheyhulislam Cemalettin, who touched on the same subject, said in his political

memoirs: The prominent figures of the society, on the other hand, started to use violence

by believing that they had the authority to organize all works with the feeling and thought

of seeing the supremacy in themselves. Finally, the apparent form of the Law was pre-

served, but the work of the government and the winner started to be carried out. When

the inexperience was first introduced, many errors occurred in administration and poli-

tics."

Journalist and writer Ecvet Guresin said: "In fact, the oppression of absolutism in

a state based on theocratic and monarchic foundations was the entry into the Constitution.

The limits of the constitutionalism were indeed not broad. Such a political conception of

unlimited political freedom emerged within these narrow boundaries that caused even

conflicts between the institutions. The hesitant attitude of The Union and Progress Society

which played a leading role in the proclamation of the constitutional monarchy, is both

thought-provoking and interesting in terms of showing the understanding at that time."

On July 24, 1908, the new era began in the Ottoman Empire with the re-enactment

of the constitution. The Turks, who gained from the opportunities provided by the multi-

party Constitutional Monarchy, formed many associations and political organizations

based on the Ottoman unity, justice, togetherness, equality, basic rights and freedoms of

the person. Non-Turks took also advantage of these opportunities and established many

literary, artistic and benevolent associations and political organizations with the intention

to break the unity of the state due to racism, nationalism, encouraging feelings of hatred

and vengeance against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish nation.

While analyzing this period, I believe that one has to emphasize the case of March

31 against the Union and Progress as it is one of the most important events of this time.

4.2 – The incident of 31th March

The hunter battalions, which were brought from Salonica to Istanbul, started a riot

on April 13th 1909, to protect the constitutional monarchy. Because of the fact that this

date is equal to the 31th March 1325 on the Rumi-calendar, it is called the incident of

31th March.

Mesut Avcı

The organization and the encouragers of this incident is still not clarified yet.

Barely, it is clear that Sultan Abdulhamit II. was not interested in this at all. With this,

there are these generally reasons graded by historians for the Incident of 31th March:

1. From the announcement of the constitutional monarchy until that day, a dis-

trusting and assorted situation arose through the pressure of the Union and Progress.

2. Communities like the Rum, Armenian and so on won independence but to es-

tablish their nation-state they saw Sultan Abdulhamit II. as an obstacle, from who they

must be saved.

3. The announcement of independence in Bulgaria by Ferdinand on October 5th.

The annex of the provinces of Bosna Herzegovina by the Austrian-Hungary Empire one

day later. The information, that Crete allied with Greece. The Occupation of Ada Kaleh

by Austrian soldiers. The inability of the government and the Union and Progress, by

whom the government was influenced, towards these occurrences.

4. The secondary officers obstructed the worship of the soldiers by putting practice

and education forward.

5. The incapability of the government to catch the murderers of the political as-

sassinations done by the Union and Progress in Istanbul

6. The continuation of the political crisis with the resignation of the governments.

The interference of the Union and Progress in the government.

7. When the censorship of the print industry was lifted, everybody began to write

what they wanted to. The consequence was that accusations against each other increased.

At the time of Sultan Abdulhamit Han there were not any newspapers of the “Volkan

gazete” which was published by “Dervis Vahdet”, who incited the folk. The minority

newspapers uncloaked the national intentions.

8. The arbitrarily done liquidation in the army and state administration through

the pressure of the Union and Progress.

9. Three days before the incident of March 31th, the Union officers told their sol-

diers that they aren’t allowed to meet with the Imams as the military service is not the

place of religious matters.

10. The notable members of the Union and Progress were accused of being ma-

sons and this accusation became widespread among the folk. The organization of the in-

cident of 31th March, which is still unclear, has the following prehistoric events, which

are the reasons for the cause and the results of it:

The leaders of Union and Progress didn’t attend the Said Pasha government which

established after the constitution. The army officers that are party members, abstained


48

from participating in the government because they were young and inexperienced.

Huseyin Cahid (Yalcın) wrote in Tanin newspaper that there is no need to take responsi-

bility. Not having been affiliated to the cabinet, the government was given to the Said

Pasha administration. In the next following years, it was seen that the unionists were tried

to be made minister assistants to overcome their shortcomings. So, in this way, they did

not take the government but did interfere however they liked it. The Thessaloniki based

central part was transferred to Istanbul. Talat, Enver, Midhat, Shukru, Hayri, Habib, Dr.

Nazım, Bahaeddin Sakir and Ismail Hakkı were sent to Istanbul to control the govern-

ment.

There existed a power gap, because the unionists, which caused the proclamation,

did not take the government but had interventions on everything while keeping the sultan

away from governmental issues raised an authority problem. This problem in almost all

the institutions triggered the riots.

As a result of the issue of a minister appointment the Said Pasha government re-

signed in the 4th of August. Kamil Pasha, whom Sultan Abdulhamit II. talked about as

‘‘He wants to be a dictator’’, became the grand vizier. Kamil Pasha appointed Nazım

Pasha as the war minister. The Ahrar Party, which was established in 24 September as

opponent of the Union and Progress Committee, became the second party in Turkish po-

litical history. Most of the prominent figures of the party were not of Turkish origin, the

founders were Celaleddin Arif, Nihat Reshad (Belger), Ismail Kemal, Ahmed Samim and

Prince Sabahaddin. The party gathered groups against the constitutional monarchy and

later Christian members of Parliament in the second proclamation.

Elections of parliament after the second proclamation caused accusations. Austria,

who protested the election campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied Bosnia and

Herzegovina on 5 October. On the same day, Bulgaria declared independence and Cretan

joined Greece. The turmoil in the country that came up with the elections and the disasters

such as those that had been encountered outside the country had extinguished the hopes

related to the constitutional monarchy. When the credibility of the Committee of Union

and Progress began to weaken, unidentified assassinations arose to crush the growing

opposition. On October 19, the Third Army's fighter battalions in Thessaloniki were

brought to Istanbul to ensure the preservation of the constitution and the security of the

city.

After the proclamation, with the pressure of the Unionists, the purges between the

military officers and the officers in the army increased the number of discontentment and

aggravated the unrest. Since the censorship was abolished in the press, hard, provocative

writings on the distinction of officers in newspapers such as Serbest, Mizan, Tanin and

Volkan, caused among the officers a split-up.

4.3 – Treaties between the Balkan States

Bulgaria was the pioneer in the relationships developed as a result of the provo-

cation by Russia. The Bulgarians, who sought for the opportunity of establishing the old

Mesut Avcı

large Bulgaria by seizing Macedonia and opening to the Mediterranean Sea since the

Berlin conference, understood that they would not be able to own Macedonia by them-

selves and the large states, as their neighbors would not allow this. Serbia desired to have

a voice in Macedonia. Greece also was hoping to benefit from the chaos. Montenegro,

however, was considering the money payment offer of Bulgaria as war expenditure. In

such an environment of different interests, Bulgaria, who accepted the goals of the Rus-

sian on the straits, took action in order to sign a treaty with Serbia. After obtaining the

support of Russia, it tried to attract the Greek too. After long negotiations, the Bulgarian-

Greek relationship was determined on 29 May 1912. Afterwards, the Serbia-Montenegro

alliance was signed on 6 October 1912. Before the Ottoman government could find the

opportunity to take certain measures against these circumstances, Montenegro declared

war against the Ottoman Empire on 8 October.

The Balkan issue, caused by these complicated ambitions of the Balkan states,

was concerning the larger states as well. The Balkan policy of Russia focused on three

goals. The first goal was to keep the Ottoman in a continuous depression through the

Balkan states. The second goal was to clear a way for itself in line with the strait by

putting the Slav states in the Balkans under its influence and the third goal was to prevent

the expansion of the Austria-Hungary Empire in the Balkans by taking advantage of the

same states.

4.4 – The Committee of Union and Progress in the 1908 and 1912 Elections

The government announced on 24 July that the elections would be held as soon as

possible and that the parliament, which had been formally formed for thirty years, would

convene. This would be the first parliamentary election to be held since 1877. The first

constitutional monarchy had prepared the law “intihab-ı mebusan”.Since Abdulhamit II

suspended the law for thirty-one years, the text accepted by the assembly was not legal-

ized because it was not submitted to the approval of the Sultan. This text was not legalized

by the declaration of Second Constitutional Law and was enacted. The elections were

held in accordance with this law. 4

The Committee of Union and Progress won a landslide victory by the elections

held in 1908. This situation had increasingly led to the formation of an oppositional group

in parliament. The third Ottoman parliament was headed by Ahmet Rıza until January

1912. But the opposition was getting stronger. The Committee of Union and Progress

came to elections in order to strengthen its position and to suppress the opposition. Thus,

the fraction “Hurriyet and Itilaf” took its place in the opposition. The elections of 1912

were made under the heavy pressure of the Union and Progress, and they had established

a strong control mechanism through the civil and military administrators. The opposition

called these elections, which were won by the Union and Progress, “sopalı (with the

stick)” or “dayaklı (beating)” elections. Halil Bey was elected as the chairman of the

Grand National Assembly on 4 May 1912. During this period, when the political crisis

reached its peak, began the successive resignations from Union and Progress. The fourth

4 Tarık Zafer Tunaya, Hürriyetin İlanı (İstanbul: Arbe Yayınları,1959), 161.


50

assembly was short-lived and was annulled on August the 5th, 1912, after four months.

Although the preparations for the new elections began, the Balkan War caused the elec-

tions to be postponed to 1914.5

5 – The Balkan Policy of Union and Progress

As a result of the nationalist movement spread by the French Revolution in 1789,

the nations within the Empire sought for independence and rebelled with the support and

assistance of some states. In Ottoman history, the 19th-century is the period of this kind

of uprisings. Because there were many different nations in the Balkan Peninsula, nation-

alist uprisings were seen here the most.

The riots in the Balkans began to develop in the 17th-century and was provoked

by Russia, whose biggest aim was to launch to the Baltic Sea and especially to the Med-

iterranean. To get to the Mediterranean, it had to take over the Black Sea, then Istanbul

and the Dardanelles. Russia tried every path to achieve this goal. One of these ways was

to use the Balkan principalities, which it was related to by race and religion as tools and

incite these young states to end the existence of the Ottoman Empire. While the Ottomans

were fighting in Tripoli, the Russian ambassador took action in Belgrade, the capital of

Serbia, and attempted to share the last remaining pieces of land left by the Ottoman Em-

pire in the Balkans between Serbia and Bulgaria. Serbia, on the other hand, was ignoring

Bulgaria in order to deal with the Ottoman Empire to achieve its own interests. The Union

and Progress government, which was unwary about the conflicts of interest between the

Balkan states, did not even care about these very favourable attempts by Serbia. Moreo-

ver, the church conflict that Abdulhamit II. had incited to prevent the unification of the

Balkan countries was resolved by the law “ittihad-i anasir” of the Union and Progress.

Since this law resolved the conflict between Bulgaria and Greece, it was now the Ottoman

Empire, which was the common enemy for both. As a result, Montenegro and Greece

joined the alliance between Serbia and Bulgaria. Thus, preparations for action against the

Ottoman Empire were completed in the Balkans.

Meanwhile, Turkish army officers were divided into two parties. On the other

hand, the government believed the Russians false assurance that they would not allow a

war in the Balkans. Asim Bey, Minister of foreign affairs of the embassy of Sofia, said

on July 15, in the Chamber of Deputies, the historical sentence: “I am as confident of the

Balkans as I am of my faith!” he claimed that there was no possibility of war. In addition,

the new Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabriel Noradingiyan, who replaced Asim Bey, re-

ported to the government that Russia's guarantee was certain. As a result of these con-

vincing guarantees, the top 120 battalions in Rumelia were discharged.

After the alliance, the Balkan states declared their wishes to the Ottoman Empire.

Without being aware of this alliance, the Unionists had provoked the student of higher

education and caused them to shout “war” in front of Babiali (high porte) and staged a

5 Zafer Toprak, “Meşrutiyet’te Seçimler ve Seçim Mevzuatı”, Encyclopaedia of Turkey (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1986), IV:974-975.

Mesut Avcı

demonstration against the government. They thought that the war would be easy. How-

ever, the allies had determined their war against Turkey and their division projects very

detailed. 6

As long as Abdulhamit II. had been remaining on the throne, he tried to prevent

these alliances between the Balkan states particularly those against the Ottoman State.

But after the proclamation of the Second Constitutional Monarchy (July 24, 1908), the

gang movements temporarily halted because of the cooperation of the Union and Progress

with the Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek committees. After that, the European states de-

clared that the control over the Macedonian reform was abolished (October 3, 1908). Two

days later, Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since the

Berlin treaty. Then the autonomous Bulgarian Principality, which was a part of the Otto-

man Empire, declared his independence (October 5, 1908). The next day, Crete an-

nounced that it joined Greece.

The Ottoman government's actions against the Greeks to win Serbia and Bulgaria

did not prevent the alliance of this internal state. The Union and Progress Administration

resolved the issue of the churches, which was the most important disagreement between

the Balkan states, with a law enacted on July 3, 1911. The owners of churches and schools

in conflict would be determined with this law by the proportion of the population. Thus,

the most important issue between the Balkan nations was resolved and the agreements

between these nations were facilitated. 7

Albanians were seen as the castle of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Espe-

cially Abdulhamit II. applied special treatment to Albanians and tried to make them loyal

to the Ottoman rule by distributing pashalic and not demanding taxes. During these prac-

tices, Albanians were satisfied with the Ottoman rule. However, the practices of Union

and Progress under the principle of equality were never welcomed by Albanians and they

rebelled four times between 1909-1912. These conflicts in Albania could not be prevented

and thus continued until the Balkan War.8

After the Ottoman State was diagnosed as a “sick man“, the European states saw

that the Ottoman presence in the Balkans was temporal. This idea was strengthened by

the fact that Balkan nationalists were drawn to the ideas of nationalism and established

or set up independent states. The Committee of Union and Progress was aware of it and

established modern and effective governance to reinforce Ottoman sovereignty. It had

also Turkified the Albanians in particular. 9

The Greek policy of the Union and Progress was not successful. The treaty, which

ended the church conflicts in Rumelia, introduced a law that compelled all men without

any distinction to compulsory military service. This situation had demoralized the army.

6Ahmet Kabaklı, “Temellerin Duruşması”, Consulted Online: 25 January 2019, http://www.dallog.com/kavramlar/otuzbirmart.htm 7 Cevdet Küçük, “Balkan Savaşı”, Encyclopaedia of Islam (İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 1992), V:23-24. 8 Gülnihal Kır Sayılğan, Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridelerine Göre Balkanlar “1911-1913” (master thesis, Gazi University, 2006), 254. 9 Sina Akşin, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki, (Istanbul: İmge Yayınları, 1987), 205.


52

For instance, the question of the Turkish-Muslim soldiers, for whom and what they will

fight for from now on, had upset the military's morale.

For this and many other reasons, the Ottoman Empire was getting weaker day by

day. Those who benefitted most from this poor condition of the state were the groups in

the Balkans. The best example of this are the Balkans, as mentioned before, which were

backed by great states of Europe, and made various attempts against the Ottoman Empire.

For example, to establish an alliance against the Ottoman Empire among themselves or

to establish organizations under the name of the association serving their views in various

regions are evidences for this. Again, one of the best examples of this are the Balkan

Wars.

The Balkan War began because of several mistakes made in both domestic and

foreign policies after the constitutional monarchy. Bulgaria was prepared for this war

during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamit II. The Yildiz Palace—because it was aware of

Bulgarian preparations—warned Bab-i ali (high porte). Sultan Abdulhamit took into ac-

count that if the war broke out, the Serb and Montenegrins would also fight with the

Bulgarians and wished for the war to take place before the alliance was formed.

While the situation was in this center just before the constitutional monarchy, Ab-

dulhamit II prevented the unification of the Balkans against the Ottoman State with the

“envy “policy he had implemented for years. By giving some rights to one of the groups

when needed, especially by denominational rights, he aroused jealousy among the others

and thus created serious disagreements among the Balkans. The constitutional cabinets,

which were unable to benefit from the competition between Balkan nations, were not able

to distance themselves from the harmful effects of the narrow idea of patriotism and na-

tional politics. They also could not prevent the Rumelia tragedy.10

The Ottoman Empire then entered the Balkan wars. These wars were a disaster

for the Ottoman Empire. There are many possible reasons for the defeats in wars. The

defeats were based on the inexperience of the leaders of the Union and Progress, who

were represented in the Ottoman government after the Young Turks revolution; the sec-

ular politics they adopted; the weakening of religious base; the entering of Christians into

the military; the hostile attitude of the great states who wanted to expel Turks from Eu-

rope; the collapse of the Ottoman army; the broken rail transport; the lack of good roads;

deficiencies in supply and the acceptance of the second-class German military system.

While examining those responsible for these defeats, the following is remarkable:

one of those responsible is Union and Progress. It is seen that the betrayal or unwilling

struggle of Albanians played an important role in the defeat in the Balkan wars. Consid-

ering the treatment of Albanians from the leaders of Union and Progress, it is understood

that Albanians are not wrong from their own point of view. The Union and Progress

10 Ahmet Bedevi Kuran, İnkılap Tarihimiz ve Jön Türkler (Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2000), 374-375.

Mesut Avcı

should have recognized the importance of Albanian support for the Ottoman Empire to

remain in Rumelia and should have been able to manage them by acting wisely. On the

other hand, the fact that the Union and Progress, who is also responsible for the disaster

in Albania, withdrew from the government despite the overwhelming majority in the par-

liament is an example of irresponsibility. Although the Union and Progress was respon-

sible for the Albanian’s dissatisfaction, the opposition, who provoked the third Albanian

uprising and formed the Halaskar Zabitan movement, had the responsibility in this be-

trayal. The opposition had done all these during the Italo-Turkish war, when the Ottoman

Empire was in a weak condition.11

It would be right to criticize the Union and Progress government as the responsible

of this defeat. Novice officials of Union and Progress who took over the government

showed dissatisfaction with the government rather than serving it with a collective idea.

Their emotional movements caused the declaration of the Balkan war because they were

not conducive to the administration. The Turkish army was defeated because even the

army commanders were not understood all over the country and as result Bulgarians

reached the Catalca front. In addition, the policy of Mahmut Shevket Pasha from the cab-

inet of Union and Progress, who organized and accepted the new military organization

and the complex foreign policy, led to the formation of the Balkan unity in the time of

Hakki Pasha. The letters written by Ottoman ambassadors - especially our Vienna am-

bassador - to draw the government's attention on this issue were not taken into account.

As a matter of fact, notifications made by the Rome ambassador Kazım Bey be-

fore the Italo-Turkish war about the Italian military preparation were not taken seriously.

A few days before the ultimatum given by the Italians, Grand Vizier Hakki Pasha said in

the parliamentary that our relationship with the Italian government was very friendly.

Furthermore, the defense of all fronts, acting in accordance with a previously prepared

plan, was a deficiency of the Union and Progress.12

These defeats caused many new problems. Perhaps the most important of these

are the atrocities committed by the Balkan states against the muslim-turkish people living

there. There had been massacres in many places and the people were trying to escape

from this persecution. Thus, the people were forced to migrate. On the other hand, there

is the resettlement policy implemented by the Committee of Union and Progress. Now let

us focus on this resettlement policy.

The Union and Progress government wanted to reinforce the Turkish population

in Anatolia and Thrace. They performed the method of “celib”. In other words, the Turks

and Muslims who lived outside the borders were brought to the Ottoman territory. On

August 31, 1913, Gumulcine, Koshukavak and Ahicelel were transferred and settled in

Edirne in order to save the Pomaks from Christianity.

11 Akşin, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki, 216. 12 Kuran, İnkılap Tarihimiz ve Jön Türkler, 383-384.


54

6 – Conclusion

The Committee of Union and Progress did not understand the importance of the

Albanian support for the Ottoman Empire in order to stay in Rumelia and could not man-

age them. Although the Committee of Union and Progress is the one to blame for the

Albanian dissatisfaction, the Halaskaran Zabitan movement, which provoked the last Al-

banian rebellion for political interests, had an effect on this discontent.

The Ottoman Empire spent all its energy on the territorial integrity of the region

due to the disturbances in the Balkans and did not deal with the issues related to the socio-

economic situation of the region. One of the most important consequences of the Balkan

wars is the independence of Albania. Thus, the Ottoman Empire lost all its lands in Ru-

melia.13

The gang activities in the Balkans, the church struggles and the Albanian revolt

had been problematic for many years for the Ottoman Empire, however, the chaos in the

administration had made it difficult to solve these problems. In particular, the Commit-

tee´s “ittihadi anasir” policy did not benefit the Ottoman state and caused a process to

start against it.

The Balkans were the first region in which the Ottoman Empire began to lose

land. Moreover, it was the connection between the Empire and the West, a region that

bears special meaning to be lost. The loss of Rumelia had had a traumatic effect on the

survival of the government in the Ottoman state class, the Young Ottomans and the

Young Turks movement. The fact that Muslim communities, some of whom had been

settled for 400-500 years, had to migrate to Anatolia in masses, in the dissolution of the

Ottomans, aggravated this trauma and the event turned into popular mass anxiety. It can

be said that the Muslim-Turkish communities who had emigrated from the lost Rumeli

served as a carrier in the process of nationalization. In addition, the loss of the Balkans

was the end of the vision of Ottomanism in the Committee of Union and Progress. In this

context, Turkish nationalism gained strength and became widespread as a reaction to the

betrayal against the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. The state formation of non-Muslim

elements in the Balkans took place under the auspices of the West. These developments

were one of the most important factors for the leaders of the Committee of Union and

Progress in the liquidation process of the non-muslim elements in Anatolia. The referral

and settlement of the Union and Progress would be the main determinant of the ethnic

and religious distribution and the mixture of Anatolia today. The migration movements

between 1913-1918 were more important than the events of the national struggle and

Republican period in terms of population and geography. Considering the living ethnic

groups, one-third of the Ottoman population of 17.5 million had been relocated by a gen-

eral calculation between these dates.14

13 Sayılğan, Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridelerine Göre Balkanlar “1911-1913”, 255. 14 Fuat Dündar, İttihat ve Terakki’nin Müslümanları İskan Politikası (1913-1918) (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002), 250-251.

Mesut Avcı

The Committee of Union and Progress can be regarded as the struggle for the

supremacy of the Turkish element in the empire against the increasing minority activities

during the 19th century, the separation from the empire, and the economic and interven-

tion of the European states. After the Committee gained power it tried to rebuild the state

through social and political reforms against the economic and political supremacy of Eng-

land, France, Russia and the minorities.

However, the mistakes made in foreign policy caused these reforms to fail and

could not prevent the rapid decline of the borders of the state. After the Italo-Turkish War,

Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet (province) and 12 islands. The mistaken

policies followed in the Balkans resulted in an alliance between the Balkan states. At the

end of the Balkan wars, all of the sovereignty areas in Europe, except Istanbul´s Rumeli

hinterland, were left to the Balkan states.

The Balkan war is a turning point in the history of the world as well as in the

history of Turkey; it symbolizes a transformation. In the context of the birth of the na-

tional identity, the national struggle began in 1912, not 1919. The national identity, which

would continue all these wars, came up with the Balkan War. The loss of the Balkans

caused the Turkish nationalism as a new national identity. The “elements” of the Ottoman

empire, which reconciled until 1912, became “national identities” that conflicted after

1912, the transition from the empire to the nation-state, requiring the common geography,

raised a kind of “national homogeneity’. The Balkan wars meant the collapse of the Ot-

toman European identity. From that point on all the attention would be returned to Ana-

tolia and the backbone of Anatolian Turkish nationalism.15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akşin, Sina. Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki. Istanbul: İmge Yayınları, 1987.

Dündar, Fuat. İttihat ve Terakki’nin Müslümanları İskan Politikası (1913-1918).

Istanbul İletişim Yayınları, 2002.

Gündağ, Niyazi. 1913 Garbi Trakya Hükümet-i Müstakilesi. Ankara: Kültür ve

Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1987.

Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. Bir Siyasal Örgüt Olarak Osmanlı İttihad ve Terakki

Cemiyeti ve Jön Türklük. Isanbul: Iletişim Yayınları, 1989

Cevdet Küçük. “Balkan Savaşı”. Encyclopaedia of Islam, V: 23-24. Istanbul:

TDV Yayınları 1992.

Kabaklı, Ahmet. “Temellerin Duruşması”. Consulted Online: 25 January 2019,

http://www.dallog.com/kavramlar/otuzbirmart.htm

15 Özer Özbozdağlı, İttihad ve Terakki’nin Balkan Siyaseti (master thesis, Mustafa Kemal University, 2005), 159-160


56

Karabekir, Kazım. İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti 1896-1909. Istanbul: Emre Yayın-

ları, 1993

Karal, Enver Ziya . İkinci Meşrutiyet ve Birinci Dünya Savaşı (1908-1918). An-

kara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1996

Kuran, Ahmet Bedev. İnkılap Tarihimiz ve Jön Türkler. Istanbul: Kaynak Yayın-

ları, 2000

Committee. Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi: Tarih, Medeniyet, Kültür. ed: Ahmet Turan

Alkan. Istanbul: Ağaç Yayınları, 1993.

Özer, Özbozdağlı. İttihad ve Terakki’nin Balkan Siyaseti, Master Thesis, Mustafa

Kemal University, Institute of Social Sciences, 2005

Savaş, Vehibe. II. Meşrutiyetin Balkanlar’daki Osmanlı İdaresine Etkileri, Master

Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Social Sciences, 2000.

Sayılğan, Gülnihal Kır. Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridelerine Göre Balkanlar

1911-1913, Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Social Sciences, 2006.

Sıtkı Bilgin. “Mustafa; Atatürk Döneminde Türkiye'nin Balkan Diplomasisi

(1923-1930).” Journal of Ataturk Research Center XX/60 (2004)

Toprak, Zafer. “Meşrutiyet’te Seçimler ve Seçim Mevzuatı.” Encyclopaedia of

Turkey. 4: 973-976. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1986

Tunaya, Tarık Zafer. Hürriyetin İlanı. Istanbul: Arba Yayınları, 1959.

THE BALKAN POLITICS OF “COMMITTEE OF UNION AND PRO- IN...

Documents

Transcript of THE BALKAN POLITICS OF “COMMITTEE OF UNION AND PRO- IN...